[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[markhsmit]

On Dec 6, 2009, at 4:05:20 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
Consciousness (sensibility) is not an 'existent'; that is, it cannot be 
quantified, localized, or objectively observed. For that reason, I prefer 
the term "essent" to designate derivatives of Essence which are non-existent 
in the traditional sense, such as Awareness, Value, and Nothingness. As a 
phenomenalist, I also regard existence in its totality (the cosmos) to be 
the product of ("actualized by") experience. Speaking metaphysically, 
essents are primary to existents which are actualized from essential Value. 
Actualization is secondary to creation, which means that in my ontogeny 
there is only one Creation -- the negation of differentiated existence from 
Absolute Essence.

In other words, the time/space dynamics of evolution and the existential 
entities that appear to the cognizant observer are experiential phenomena. 
While this ontogeny has little practical value for those who put their stock 
and trade in physical reality, I have found it quite useful in understanding 
metaphysical reality.

Hi Ham,
OK, I am beginning to get your logic.  It may be a little convoluted as I understand it but OK.
I am always looking to add to my understanding with bits and pieces from others.
There is essence and its derivatives.  In many ways what I read in your lines is another
translation of Brahman.  Through reductionist philosophy, experience, a little science and
some deeper understanding, I see a mind which experiences the world through the
human body.  This is the personal I.  It is possible for it to experience existence through anything,
the resulting experience in other things would not be translatable to this current one, for 
example there may not be a memory component.  However, the "I" would still be there.
This is what I understand may be similar to your negation.  Now, it would stand to reason
that there may be different essents which each have their own I which experience negational
essence through corporeal manifestation.  On the other hand, there may be a single 
"I" which experiences differentiated experiences (resulting in different people) which
is the same except for the body it has manifested as.  So, when I look at someone else,
I am actually looking at myself in a different incarnation.  Eastern philosophies as taught to
me by Alan Watts and others, subscribe to this.  This is your Nothingness, which is
singular, becoming aware or differentiated.

In fact when an enlightened one (from the East) is approached by a confused
student, he laughs and says [God] why are you playing with me in this way".
We tend to confuse ourselves, for whatever reason, and forget who we are really.  
This is the power of experience.  It is like diving into an icy cold pond and for a 
second being overwhelmed by the cold and lose a sense of who one is.  The experience 
of life causes such a confusion.  This would imply that there is essence within, 
which I think is I believe allowed within your ontology.  It would also indicate 
that there is a "sense" of something even when not manifested in the physical
world.

It does suggest an Essence which is separate from existence (as a physical reality).
Of interest to me, is an image, or picture, diagraming the transitional process of
negation.  It can not be either absent or present.  The concept of "I" is grown.

Cheers,
Mark